Dunlap v. General Motors LLC

ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TO STAY,
(2) DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTON TO REMAND, AND (3)
DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO BRIEF ISSUES RELATED TO THE
COURT'S JURISDICTION

ROSEANN A. KETCHMARK, JUDGE

This
case was removed from state court in September 2016.
Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand. (Doc. 7.)
Defendant (also referred to as “New GM”)
responded to the Motion to Remand (doc. 15) and separately
filed a Motion to Stay (doc. 13). Both motions are fully
briefed. The Court now DENIES the Motion to Stay, and further
DENIES the Motion to Remand. The Court also directs the
parties to brief issues related to the Court's
jurisdiction.

Background

In June
2009, Motors Liquidation Corporation, f/k/a General Motors
Corporation, (“Old GM”), filed a petition for
bankruptcy relief in the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the Southern District of New York. The following month, the
Bankruptcy Court approved the sale of substantially all of
Old GM's assets to Defendant.[1] According to Defendant,
“[t]he sale of assets was free and clear of all liens,
claims, and encumbrances, except for certain limited
exceptions.” (Doc. 1, ¶ 10.) Nonetheless, many
suits were filed against Defendant, alleging injuries caused
by defective ignition switches on vehicles sold by both Old
GM and Defendant. Accordingly, in June 2014, the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, (“the Panel”),
issued a transfer order creating Multidistrict Litigation
2543, In re General Motors LLC Ignition Switch
Litigation (“the MDL”).

Plaintiffs
filed this suit in the Circuit Court of Jackson County,
Missouri, on August 25, 2016. The suit consists of
approximately eighty-five plaintiffs. The details of
Plaintiffs' claims are not important for purposes of
considering the pending motions. In summary, Plaintiffs
purchased various vehicles sold by either Old GM or
Defendant, and they assert personal injury claims caused by
allegedly faulty ignition switches.

Defendant
was served on August 30. On September 6, Plaintiffs filed an
Amended Petition in state court; however, Plaintiffs did not
serve the Amended Petition on Defendant. Apparently unaware
of the Amended Petition, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal
on September 29 that purported to remove the original
Petition. The Notice of Removal alleges that jurisdiction
exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334, because
Plaintiffs' claims are related to Old GM's
bankruptcy. (Doc. 1, ¶ 8.)[2]

On
October 4, Defendant filed a Notice with the Panel, advising
that this case appeared to be related to the MDL. The next
day, the Panel issued a Conditional Transfer Order,
(“CTO”), conditionally transferring this case to
the MDL. Plaintiffs objected to the CTO, which stayed the
transfer until the Panel rules on Plaintiffs' objections.
The Panel is scheduled to entertain argument on
Plaintiffs' objection at its hearing session on January
26, 2017.[3]

Plaintiffs
filed their Motion to Remand on October 20; as discussed
below in Part I.A.1, Plaintiffs primarily contend that
Defendant's attempted removal is defective because it did
not purport to remove the Amended Petition. Defendant's
response addresses this argument, and also suggests the Court
should refrain from ruling on Plaintiffs' motion until
the Panel rules on the Plaintiffs' objection to the CTO
because the matter might be best decided by the MDL.
Defendant's separate Motion to Stay presents the same
argument in greater detail. As discussed more fully below,
the Court denies both motions.

Discussion

I.
Defendant's Motion to Stay

A.
The Appropriate Standard

The
Court has the inherent discretion to stay proceedings,
particularly when necessary to manage its docket and
coordinate with litigation pending in other forums. E.g.,
Lunde v. Helms,898 F.2d 1343, 1345 (8th Cir. 1990). The
Panel's Rules are designed to maintain this flexibility.
For instance, Rule 2.1 (formerly Rule 1.5) provides that
“[t]he pendency of a . . . conditional transfer order .
. . does not affect or suspend orders and pretrial
proceedings in any pending federal district court action and
does not limit the pretrial jurisdiction of that
court.” Thus, although the Court has the power to issue
rulings while objections to the CTO are pending, the Court
also is not obligated to do so. And, there is no doubt that
this flexibility applies specifically to motions to remand
that are filed before the case is transferred. As the Panel
noted when discussing Rule 2.1's predecessor,
“those courts wishing to address such motions [to
remand] have adequate time in which to do so, those courts
concluding that such issues should be addressed by the
transferee judge need not rule on them, and the process of .
. . transfer . . . can continue without any unnecessary
interruption or delay.” In re Prudential Ins. Co.
of Am. Sales Practice Litig., 170 F.Supp.2d 1346,
1347-48 (J.P.M.L. 2001).

In
deciding whether to grant Defendant's motion, the Court
must first ascertain exactly what Defendant seeks to have
stayed. Defendant's argument focuses on the Motion to
Remand, contending that it raises issues that are likely to
be presented to the MDL. Defendant mentions, but does not
focus on, the wisdom of staying all proceedings (including
discovery) pending the Panel's decision. In addition, the
parties have already reached certain agreements regarding the
processing of this case. (See Doc. 18.) For these
reasons, the Court construes Defendant's request as
asking the Court to stay its consideration of the Motion to
Remand and allow it to be decided by the MDL (assuming, of
course, that the Panel overrules Plaintiffs' objections
to the CTO).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;With
that understanding in place, the Court next considers whether
the Motion to Remand should be resolved now or if it should
be reserved for possible resolution by the MDL. The parties
have provided a multitude of decisions from other courts,
some of which have resolved pending motions to remand and
some of which have stayed the motion for resolution by the
MDL. The Court does not find the outcome of these
cases particularly helpful: as should be expected, district
courts have not been unanimous in the exercise of their
discretion, and the exercise of discretion depends greatly on
the particulars of the case. Of more assistance has been the
factors other courts consider in deciding whether to stay the
matter. The majority of courts apply the analysis set forth
in Meyers v. Bayer AG, 143 F.Supp.2d 1044 (E.D. Wis.
2001), and the Court finds that court&#39;s analytical
framework to be persuasive because it appropriately balances
(1) the judicial economies that underlie the MDL and (2)
appropriate consideration of matters related to jurisdiction
and removal.[4] Under the Meyers test, the Court
first makes a preliminary assessment to determine whether the
issue presented in the Motion to Remand is easily resolved.
The Court then considers whether the issues ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.